M.P.Saxena - (1.)SARVASRI J. P., Nath, S. I., N. N. Singh, A. N. Shukla, P. K. Singh, A. K. Sharma and A. P.: Srivastava have filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 17.4.1976 passed by Shri Prem Narain Roy, Illrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are that in October 1975 revisionist No. 1 was posted as a S.I. at police station Mutthiganj while the remaining revisionists were posted as Sales Tax Officers at Allahabad. On 22.10.1973 the opposite party filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad under Sections 147, 323, 504/506 and 426 I.P.C, alleging that there is a Azad Furniture Mart at 623, Tilak Road, BahadurGanj, Allahabad, which is owned by Mohammad Javid. The opposite party was a mechanic and one Rahim used to polish the furnitures. On 20.10.1975 Mohd. Javid had gone to Pratapgarh to see his ailing wife. In that night the revisionists came there and enquired about the whereabouts of Mohammad Javid. When he gave out that he had gone to Pratapgarh they forced him to give himself out as owner of the Furniture Mart. On his refusal to do so they beat him with kicks, fists and dandas. They stayed up to 12 in the night and then went away. The opposite party and Rahim got their injuries examined at the Moti Lal Nehru Hospital. This occurrence was witnessed by Babu Khan, Paras Nath and Mohd. Yaqub. He went to lodge a report but it was not taken down. The complainant filed copies of the injury reports also.
The learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Sectin 200 CrPC and then recorded evidence under Section 202 Cr. P. C. He came to the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the revisionists and he dismissed the complaint and discharged the revisionists under Section 203 Cr.P. C.

The opposite party filed a revision which was disposed of by the Illrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, by the impugned order. He came to the conclusion that the enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. does not contemplate a thorough probe into the matter. The court has simply to feel satisfied that a prima facie case is made out. He also held that if it was really correct that the revisionists had inflicted injuries to Mohd. Kalim and Rahim, the question would arise whether the revisionists had done so while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. This question could not be decided unless some evidence was recorded and up to the stage the evidence under section 202 CrPC was recorded there was no material to hold that the complaint was barred by Section 197 CrPC. Accordingly he set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and directed him to take cognizance of the case and proceed according to law hence this revision application.

(3.)THE main question for consideration is whether in the circumstances of this case sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr. P. C. was necessary. THE relevant portion of Section 197 of the Code lays down as follows :-
' (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction : (a) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government: (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government."

The expression "acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" has been the subject matter of discussion in a number of cases. In Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 44 the test for determining it was laid down in the following words :-

"The offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner with the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. What the court must find out is whether the act and the official duty arose inter related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation."